Bharat Bhushan Gulati vs Hari Singh
2010 Latest Caselaw 3827 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                     Date of Judgment : 17th August, 2010.

+                        R.S.A.No.192/2007


        BHARAT BHUSHAN GULATI          ...........Appellant
                   Through: Mr.B.S.Mann and Mr.Jai
                            Prakash, Advocates.

                      Versus

        HARI SINGH                                  ..........Respondent
                             Through:    Mr.Siddharth Luthra, Sr.Adv.
                                         with Mr.Ashok Kaushik, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                   Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                                 Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)

1.      This second appeal has impugned the judgment dated

29.5.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated

20.03.2003 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

2.      Plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit for possession stating to

be the owner of land measuring 200 sq. yds. bearing no.A3/29, Dal

Mill Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He had purchased it from

Hari Prakash on 28.11.1981. Defendant was permitted to use the

property as a licensee which license has since been terminated

but in spite of request to the defendant to evict the property; he

has not vacated the property.           The defendant had refuted the

claim     of    the     plaintiff.      He    had   claimed    ownership

by    way      of    adverse    possession.     The   trial   court    had

framed three issues. Issue no.1 was as to whether the plaintiff

is owner of           suit property ? While dealing with this issue,
 R.S.A.No.192/2007                                               Page 1 of 5
 the trial court had recorded that the plaintiff has filed copy of

Khasra Girdawari for the year 1994-95 of the village Hastsal as

also a copy of Khatoni for the year 1978-79. It had further held

that in the first document the Gram Sabha has been shown to be

as a Bhumidar of land measuring 4.13 bighas comprised in Khasra

no.76, Katoni No.694, Killa no.9/2/2 and the latter document

shows that Khasra no.72/2/2/2, 76/9/2/2 vests in the Gram Sabha

by virtue of Section 81 of Delhi Rent Control Act.            In these

circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was the owner of

the suit property as the same had vested in the Gram Sabha. The

registered sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff dated 28.11.1981

does not pass any title as the vendor had no right to sell this suit

property. It was further held that defendant is not a licensee in

the suit property. Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

3.    The first appellate court endorsed the finding of the trial

judge. The relevant extract of which reads as follows:

      "8.   The provisions quoted by Ld.counsel for appellant
      does not create right or title in the suit property as owner
      thereof on the basis of documents executed by Hari
      Prakash on 28.11.81 in favour of the plaintiff as Hari
      Prakash too was having no title to the suit property even
      from so called original owners/bhoomidars of the suit land
      namely Daya Nand, Khshi Ram and Ishwar Singh and
      their successor in interest who executed documents of the
      property in favour of Hari Prakash as was discussed in
      detail by the Ld.Civil Judge. It is well settled proposition
      of law that a person having no title cannot pass on any
      title in respect of the property.   Since the land in suit
      belongs to gram sabha as per khasra girdawari and
      khatoni of the village and was also vested in the gram
      sabha under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act by
      order of the SDM Punjabi Bagh in case no.93/84, no other
      person other than gram sabha could create a title of
 R.S.A.No.192/2007                                            Page 2 of 5
       ownership in favour of the plaintiff as on 28.11.81 the
      date when one Hari Prakash executed documents in
      favour of the plaintiff on which basis ownership was
      claimed by the plaintiff including one of the substituted
      plaintiff namely Bharat Bhushan who was brought on
      record vide order dt.14-2-2000 after death of the plaintiff
      on 15.11.99. As such, the sale deed in favour of Bharat
      Bhushan also does not create right or title as owner of the
      suit property in favour of Bharat Bhushan which has been
      proved on record by the appellant as Ex.PW1/6 i.e. the
      sale deed dt.27.8.98 by the plaintiff in favour of his own
      son namely Bharat Bhushan.       The same principle that
      person having no title cannot pass any title applies to this
      sale deed also against one of the plaintiff namely Bharat
      Bhushan."

4.    The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the

judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is liable to be set

aside for the reason that the disputed land has been notified under

Section 507 (a) of the the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957

(hereinafter referred to as „the DMC Act‟) as „urban land‟ and as

such it is taken out of the purview of the Delhi Reforms Act. For

this proposition reliance has been placed upon a judgment of

Division Bench of this court in W.P.(C) 4143/2003 Smt.Indu

Khorana vs. Gram Sabha & Ors. wherein it has been held that

once a rural area is urbanized by issuance of a notification under

Section 507 (a) of DMC Act, provisions of Delhi Reforms Act will

cease to apply. There is no dispute to this proposition. However,

it is to be noted that the notification under Section 507 A of DMC

Act had not been brought on record by the plaintiff.        This is an

oral submission which is made at this stage. No court below had

any such evidence to draw a finding that the disputed land had

become urbanized under Section 507 (a) of the DMC Act and was
 R.S.A.No.192/2007                                            Page 3 of 5
 excluded from the provisions of the Delhi Reforms Act.            This

judgment is inapplicable.

5.     Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance

upon    162    (2009)   DLT   684   Mahesh Chandra Agarwal vs.

Rameshwar & Ors. to support his submission that question of

ownership cannot be decided only by looking at the revenue

records    and Khasra     Girdawari   and the   Khatoni   were     not

documents sufficient to hold that the plaintiff was not the owner of

the suit property. Reliance by the learned counsel for the

appellant on this judgment is totally misplaced. It was the plaintiff

himself who had placed the Khasra Girdawari for the year 1994-95

and Khatoni for the year 1978-79 to substantiate his claim of title

to the suit property.    These were the documents of the plaintiff

himself which had been relied upon by the courts below to draw a

conclusion that they are contrary to his submission that he is

owner of the suit land. This judgment also does not come to help

of the appellant.

6.     The substantial questions of law have been formulated on

page 16 of the memo of appeal; they are nine in number.           The

same have been perused. They relate to findings of fact that the

disputed land has vested in the Gaon Sabha. They cannot by any

stretch of imagination be termed as substantial questions of law.

Arguments addressed have already been aforenoted.

7.     Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has

submitted that no question of law has arisen before this court.

There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the

respondent. Arguments addressed before this court have in fact

raised no substantial question of law.

 R.S.A.No.192/2007                                          Page 4 of 5
 8.    Both the fact finding courts below had on a detailed analysis

of the evidence adduced before them, both oral and documentary,

drawn the fact finding conclusion that the plaintiff is not owner of

the suit property.   The plaintiff not being the owner was not

entitled to the relief sought for by him. This court is not a third

fact finding court. No substantial question of law having arisen,

appeal is dismissed in limine.




                                         INDERMEET KAUR, J.

AUGUST 17, 2010 rb